Vikas Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Human Resources Development Deptt

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

L. P. A. No. 68 of 2020

Vikas Kumar

… … Appellant

Versus

The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi

¶8

The Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi

¶9

The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chairman, District Compassionate Appointment Committee, Chatra

¶10

The District Superintendent of Education, Chatra

¶11

… … Respondent

¶12

¶13

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶14

¶15

For the Appellant : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate For the Respondent : Mrs. Pinki Tiwary, AC to AG

¶16

¶17

8/07.03.2024 I. A. No. 2186 of 2024:

¶18

Heard Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel for the appellant and

¶19

Mrs. Pinki Tiwary, learned AC to AG for the State.

¶20

This interlocutory application has been preferred by the appellant for condoning the delay of 169 days in filing this appeal.

¶21

Having been satisfied with the reasons assigned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 169 days in filing this appeal is hereby condoned.

¶22

I. A. No. 2186 of 2024 stands disposed of.

¶23

L. P. A. No. 68 of 2020:

¶24

Heard Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Pinki Tiwary, learned AC to AG for the State.

¶25

This appeal is directed against the order dated 11.07.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 3836 of 2011 Whereby and whereunder the writ application preferred by the petitioner for consideration of his appointment on compassionate ground on the post of Assistant Teacher has been dismissed.

¶26

It has been submitted by Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel for the writ petitioner that in the meeting of the District Compassionate

¶27

-2-

¶28

Committed headed by the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra, the case of the petitioner was considered along with several other eligible persons and he has specifically pointed out the case of one Pawan Kumar Singh and Vishal Kumar Tiwari, who were granted compassionate appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher (untrained scale). Learned counsel submits that the minutes of the District Compassionate Committee clearly reveals that the writ – petitioner has been discriminated against as though he was having the necessary qualification, but he has been granted appointment to a Grade III post ignoring his claim to be appointed to the post of Assistant Teacher. It has also been submitted that though this fact has been brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge, but no finding has been recorded and on such score also, the impugned order dated 11.07.2019 deserves to be set aside.

¶29

Mrs. Pinki Tiwari, learned AC to AG has submitted that a person cannot claim compassionate appointment as a matter of right and in fact the writ petitioner was earlier granted compassionate appointment to a Grade IV post which he declined and continued to prefer representation and taking a lenient view of his representation, he was appointed on a Grade III post as a Clerk and on which he joined and therefore he cannot be permitted to agitate his grievance at this stage.

¶30

The mother of the writ petitioner was an Assistant Teacher in Primary School, Bichkila, Pratappur, Chatra who died in harness on 27.10.2005 which resulted in an application preferred by the writ petitioner for grant of compassionate ground. The writ petitioner was recommended for being appointed on a Grade IV post, but since the writ petitioner had represented the concerned authority claiming the post of Assistant Teacher considering his educational qualification, the District Compassionate Committee had in its proceeding dated 19.06.2009 modified the earlier order and recommended the appointment of the writ petitioner to a Grade III post i.e., the post of a Clerk. The writ petitioner though had joined to the Grade III post, but has continued to agitate his grievance to the effect that he should have been appointed as an Assistant Teacher. Though, it is not for a compassionate appointee to claim appointment to a particular post as a matter of right, but at the same time we must consider the fact that in the District

¶31

-3-

¶32

Compassionate Committee meeting headed by the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra, four other persons who were seeking compassionate appointment have been recommended for being appointed to the post of Assistant Teacher (untrained scale). The submission advanced by Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel for the writ petitioner has some substance in view of the recommendation made to the similarly situated persons in the meeting held by the District Compassionate Committee, in which the case of the writ petitioner was also considered, but taking a different view to that of the other four persons, the writ petitioner has been recommended for being appointed on a Grade III post i.e., the post of Clerk.

¶33

On perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 11.07.2019 passed in W.P.(S) No. 3836 of 2011, it appears that consideration has not been made to the discrimination committed by the District Compassionate Committee against the petitioner, vis-à-vis the other four candidates whose names were recommended for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher (untrained scale). In fact, the learned Single Judge has primarily considered the fact that after the representations were submitted by the writ petitioner on being recommended for appointment to Grade IV post, the District Compassionate Committee in its meeting had reconsidered the claim of the writ petitioner and had recommended him for being appointed on a Grade III post of a Clerk. The meeting of the Department Compassionate Committee clearly reveals that the petitioner has been discriminated against and his case should have been considered at par with the other four persons, whose names were recommended for being appointed as an Assistant Teacher in an untrained scale.

¶34

In view of the aforesaid facts, therefore, we set aside the order dated 11.07.2019 passed in W.P.(S) No. 3836 of 2011 and remand the matter back to the District Compassionate Committee, Chatra for reconsideration of the claim of the petitioner in view of the apparent discrimination which has been noted above with respect to the several similarly situated persons being recommended for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in untrained scale.

¶35

This appeal stands allowed.

¶36

-4-

¶37

It is expected that the District Compassionate Committee shall convene a meeting at the earliest in order to consider the case of the writ petitioner.

¶38

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J)

¶39

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶40

R Shekhar Cp 2

Vikas Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Human Resources Development Deptt

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikas Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Human Resources Development Deptt

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shahnwaz Alam Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jan Kalyan Morcha through Its President Om Prakash Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

Uma Shanker Singh Vs Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Adalat Deshwali Vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The Chief Secretary And Ors.

Pankaj Kumar Yadav President Centre 4 Rti Vs the State of Jharkhand

Court on Its Own Motion Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.